Labels and the BOX they put us in!

reply to post by Cygnis


There are 1000's of boxes. More numerous than can be imagined. Like I stated to another commenter, if I was to write about all of the avenues of this, it would of been a book.

And I would not have even scratched the surface. The study of human psychology, culture, history, and vast other fields would have to be researched. I am sure one component of our government has done a thorough research into it to help mold the psyche of the American people.

You can see it being used day in and day out by the media and the manipulative way the government disseminates information, slowly and deliberately.

I believe the reason that people are getting angry about the use of this is they are becoming aware of the blatant manipulation.

What do you think of what I have stated so far?

Originally posted by Lasheic
reply to post by endisnighe

 

You don't really have a choice in the matter, unfortunately. Stereotypes are an unconscious cognitive function that sorts and categorizes large groups of variance by perceived threads of commonality, specifically when applied to people in anticipation of social interaction. It was incredibly useful to our hunter-gatherer tribal ancestors when assessing risk/opportunity levels posed by other tribes of humans in the wilderness - and is still more or less a useful attribute. However, this process doesn't draw moral boundaries... it just is, and environment/culture can have a profound effect on the associations made by this process, which shapes your perception and inferences. Labels are mental shortcut for identifying and associating collections of commonly shared traits indicative to a stereotype - which is itself a correlated to groups of shared cultural/physiological/behavioral/etc traits. It help serves as a back-bone for In-Group/Out-Group identification and assessment. Generally, positive assessments are made based on higher proportions of similarities, while negative assessments are made based on the higher proportion of differences. This had a survival benefit, as higher degrees of shared similarities tend to correlate with a greater degree of shared genetics (family group/clan) However, the greater the degree of differences there were, the more likely they are to be of non-relation and a potential competition for resources.

But I do have a choice. You state that cognitive response are completely unconscious responses to outside stimuli. I feel you are incorrect in your assumption that the conscious is totally controlled by the subconscious. The Freudian model of the mind rationalizes that the only part of the mind that cannot be controlled is the ID. I believe Freud to be correct in that assumption but incorrect that it drives us in any shape or form in our conscious actions. It may give the conscious the feel of safety you speak of but individuals have the ability to make choices that go against their base instinct or ID, otherwise we would be just animals per se. For example, the ID would in no shape or form allow us to run into a burning building to save a loved one or anyone else for that matter. In anticipation of anyone telling me that would be the survival instinct to save the tribe, I say hogwash, it is the conscious making the choice between ones own survival and another human being.

That's why you tend to feel safer and more comfortable with family, friends, and those whom you share common interests with, while conversely you tend to feel more uneasy and threatened when surrounded by those who don't share your interests, views, and culture.

And as I said, it's an unconscious process that's only really been recognized in the last half-century or so. It's rather telling that, when you consider the languages we've created - there really aren't any basic verbal constructs that can describe groups in a manner which accurately convey their constituent individual components. The best we come up with are rough analogies such as likening interaction with them to "Herding Cats" or "Cowboy Cultures". Even there, however, you'd just be associating groups of individuals with a stereotype (Cats, Cowboys) based on the stressed similarity towards individuality.

You can't help that you engage in stereotyping, but you can be aware of it's effect and work to mitigate the bias it introduces - as well as weed out faulty/offensive/dehumanizing associations. Note also, that this isn't to suggest that racism is ingrained or genetically determined. Racism is merely a particular expression of stereotyping wherein ethnic associations are the predominant divisional markers between in-group/out-group distinction. It can also manifest along political ideologies, religious affiliations, philosophical worldviews, etc. Even trivialities as inane as what music genres you like or what video game consoles/computer hardware you prefer.

Yes, you are right that we cannot help but stereotype, but once one knows their own traits of said associative reasoning, a conscious effort can be made to disassociate those very biases. And I had kept my OP basic for the very reasons you bring up. I could have gone to the very things that we are speaking of here, to describe my reasoning behind my point of view. It would have been one hell of a long read. But "I" believe once one is aware of the very BOX their mind is contained within, it can be changed. One commenter expressed it as an associative pain reminiscent of tearing off sticky tape and I believe they were almost brilliant in that analogy.

That we group people by shared similarities (even if those traits are projected falsehoods) and infer social interaction from them is what is inherent to human nature. The defining of those groups and the inferences made according to them are determined socially and individually.

It may be inherent to human nature, but cannot any animal learn to respond differently to an outside stimuli? Even if that outside stimuli being created internally in the conscious mind? What I am inferring here is that if you can perceive your own bias, can you not than respond to it differently than your learned or taught responses? Or are we just puppets to the training of all outside stimuli?

[edit on 1/6/2010 by endisnighe]

First - labels are to some extent necessary - for example in social planning. The person who thinks we can live without any sort of categorisation is truly living in a happy clappy la la land.
Second I've noticed that folks on sites like this are perhaps the keenest of all to apply 'labels'.
Third, it seems that people can put a label round their own neck and box themselves up without any help from outside forces!

reply to post by unicorn1


Thanks for your comment.

No response is necessary because you like your box.

Carry on.

reply to post by endisnighe
Let's not be so quick to dismiss that comment.

As has been mentioned previously, there are boxes within boxes within boxes, ad infinitum. So, because one is becoming aware of a "box" let's say social or political, and is willing to "step outside" and consider opening their minds to other opportunities, that is not to say those new and greater experiences are not also part of a larger "box"... I like to think of it in stages ranging from micro-sized boxes to macro-sized boxes... which box offers the most insight, the most experience, the most versatility, the most global perspective?

How do you know where you are (which box you are in) and where you want to go? If you keep pushing the boundaries you'll either find one you're quite happy with or continue to move outward... Not everyone will want to keep expanding.

One could go a bit crazy with the visualization...




[edit on 6-1-2010 by LadySkadi]

reply to post by LadySkadi


Well you may be right, but labels are necessary in social planning? What does that mean? Social planning of what? In regards to what?

Also the quip of fa la la land. That was unnecessary.

And the last sentence seemed to be quite inflammatory.

You are right about the vast labyrinth of controls/boxes we are part of and are instituted for said controls.

But trying to control my attitude that finds denigration and flippancy stupid is another box or it could be a conditioned response Box. I know, see the patterns and then try to remove them.

This very tendency to control anger is another very strong box installed upon us. Think of it, why has the American people allowed over the past 30 years the total destruction to the very fabric of our culture?

Like I said, I am going to try to find all my boxes and remove them all (except of course the humanity).

Their is a myriad of control placed upon us that is astronomical in scale. Yes, you cannot remove them all, but the ones instituted as controls of the mind I will break them as I find them.

WOW, that was pretty good, thanks for the inspiration.

[edit on 1/6/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by endisnighe

You state that cognitive response are completely unconscious responses to outside stimuli.

That's not what I said.

The Freudian model of the mind rationalizes that the only part of the mind that cannot be controlled is the ID. I believe Freud to be correct in that assumption but incorrect that it drives us in any shape or form in our conscious actions.

Freud was instrumental in the foundation of psychology, but his work is pretty much irrelevant these days. Further, Behaviorism most generally associated with Pavlov & Skinner has similarly been marginalized in the wake of the Cognitive Revolution, the proposal of the Computational Theory of Mind, and the advancements in Neuroscience. The most important development in this transition has been the development and application of the fMRI scanner capable of mapping the activity of the brain as it's working, which has allowed the identification and mapping of multitudes of specialized brain regions working in tandem. Newer DTI scanning techniques highlight not just the activity within specific regions - but the densely packed neural pathways connecting these regions together.

Cognitive Psychology/Cognitive Neuroscience is pretty much the science of dissecting the consciousness by isolating and studying it's component processes to see how our brains process information.

Whether or not you like the conclusions that it's coming to is pretty much irrelevant in the face of a functional understanding powerful enough to facilitate the development of technologies as a result of Cognitive Neuroscience - such as Sensory Prosthesis, Brain Computer Interfaces, and Voiceless Communication. We've even modeled robotic visual processing systems on our own which are susceptible to the same optical illusions.





Edit: Found a more applicable video on sensory processing systems in the brain.


[edit on 6-1-2010 by Lasheic]

reply to post by Lasheic


Sorry for the misrepresentation of your position.

I have not been in pysch courses for quite some time.

They may have started mapping the brains activities and have come to preliminary conclusions and I have very lightly investigated what you have presented.

Still, the science of cognitive reasoning, the mapping of the higher brain functions and also the brain interfaces you refer to is still in its infancy.

I myself believe their is something that can never be mapped and hopefully you do not jump on me for this thesis. That even if we are able to create a perfect model of a brain and recreate it in a perfect computer simulation, you still would not be able to create a human mind.

There will be the unmappable interactions of the neural pathways in the nth plane so to speak.

I am not, repeat not dismissing your position. I believe there is the unmeasurable aspect of the soul of man.

I do find the field to be absolutely fascinating and will hope I can set aside some time to see their current research and applications.

Thanks for the discussion.

reply to post by endisnighe

I have not been in pysch courses for quite some time.

Neither am I, but it's a very exciting time to be following the field. Now would be an excellent time to get a brush up, I think. All the information necessary is out there and readily accessible at your convenience. Further, there's several good general audience psychology book to choose from. I would suggest Steven Pinker's: "The Blank Slate" or "How the Mind Works".

That even if we are able to create a perfect model of a brain and recreate it in a perfect computer simulation, you still would not be able to create a human mind.

That's not an area very many people are willing to speculate on. Partially due to the implications if they can, and partially because of the sci-fi sensationalism that surrounds the topic. However, we may know the answer within ten years. The Blue Brain project has already emulated the Neo-Cortical Column of a Rat on the synaptic level, and have started worked on the molecular emulation (I.E. they're even emulating the molecules which make up the cells so as to better study gene expression). They think they'll have a fully functioning emulation of the human brain on the synaptic level within the decade.

reply to post by LadySkadi


Awesome post......I would have to totaly agree with you. I'm comforatable with the box I put myself in. No one elses really matters to me. I'm happy with myself, and the growth I'm making, which has been considerable in the last few years. I refuse to let others labels stick to me.

reply to post by endisnighe


Wheather you vocalize the label or the box dosen't mean that deep down in your psyche you don't still retain the hate, racism, predjudice and the rest of the negative emotions associated with someone or group. Other words give you away as to your true feelings.

That is why this dicipline works so well in all sorts of applications.



You can run, but you can't hide!







[edit on 6-1-2010 by whaaa]

reply to post by whaaa


Sometimes whaaaaaaaaaaa, I do not know whaaaaaaaaaat to make of you.


From your link.

Despite its popularity[13], NLP has been largely ignored by conventional social science because of issues of professional credibility[13] and insufficient empirical evidence to substantiate its models and claimed efficacy.[14] It appears to have little impact on academic psychology, and limited impact on mainstream psychotherapy and counselling.[14] However, it had some influence among private psychotherapists, including hypnotherapists, to the extent that some claim to be trained in NLP and apply it to their practice. NLP had greater influence in management training, life coaching,[15] and the self-help industry.[16]

edit to add-talk about disparagement-I will not fall for bait such as this comment of yours-

Wheather you vocalize the label or the box dosen't mean that deep down in your psyche you don't still retain the hate, racism, predjudice and the rest of the negative emotions associated with someone or group. Other words give you away as to your true feelings.

[edit on 1/7/2010 by endisnighe]

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by whaaa

 

Sometimes whaaaaaaaaaaa, I do not know whaaaaaaaaaat to make of you.

Even your response was a type of label and box and a veiled disparagement of me as a person.








[edit on 6-1-2010 by whaaa]

reply to post by whaaa

Even your response was a type of label and box and a veiled disparagement.

Explain please.

Trying to see outside my box. The flaps keep getting in the way.


edit to add-talk about disparagement-I will not fall for bait such as this comment of yours-

Wheather you vocalize the label or the box dosen't mean that deep down in your psyche you don't still retain the hate, racism, predjudice and the rest of the negative emotions associated with someone or group. Other words give you away as to your true feelings.

[edit on 1/7/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by whaaa


NLP is little more than self-help cheesecake IMO. The very name "Neural-Linguistic Programming" is more a buzzword than a descriptive title. NLP has little to no "Neural" components, and despite the popularity of the computational theory of mind - associations with programming the brain like you program a computer are incorrect by CTm, and not substantiated. The very concept is more closely associated with popular concepts Behaviorist Psychology (particularly Conditioning) than Neuroscience or Cognition. More consistent and evidenced results are gained through group therapy techniques or personal counseling. Most of it's effects seem to me to indicative of placebo effect ineffectual for long-term behavior modification.

"NLP" was devised around the same time the cognitive revolution began gaining stride and fell out of favor academically because it couldn't produce substantiated results. While there may be some nugget of functionality it touches upon, NLP was simply not attractive to serious researchers who saw more potential investing their education in the field of Cognitive Sciences which found application in both human psychology and revolutionary advances in AI research (See: Marvin Minsky). The established and empirically evidenced behaviorist camp sequestered most of the other serious researchers. (Cognitive Psychology drew heavy Behaviorist criticism due to the inability to "observe" or preform experiments on the thought process it studied until fMRI was developed)

Neuro-Linguistics is an appeal to Cognitive Science which used language as a tool to glimpse the mind's operation. (See: Chomsky's famous rebuttal to Skinner's book "Verbal Behavior") "Programming" is an appeal to traditional Behaviorist conditioning. It's become a hodge-podge mix & match of popular concepts. Whatever claims it may have had to a real study of the mind, NLP's reach has by far exceeded it's grasp at this point. It became increasingly promoted by spiritualists and new-age self-help pseudo-therapists. Like vultures to a fresh carcass, the associations it had to real science at one time has made it a popular adoption for snake-oil salesmen. The ensuing crap has spoiled the pot to the point where nobody with a career to put on the line is going to dare touch it without damned good substantiating evidence.

I applaude you for saying that you will do longer try to label people. We need more people like that. (I think this is your first post that I agreed with you on)

I think that what you saying is going to far harder then you can imagine. Humans have been labeling things since adam and eve. Its not something that you can quit like smoking. If you go by the bible then even God labeled us.

While labels can be used as control I do not think they were intended that way. If you say terrorist then I think of Al-qida, bin-ladin etc. and that is used to strike fear into us. But what would we do without labels. We have to beable to describe groups of people. Not nessecarily for control but for ease. If I want to describe one group of people that have similar views what am i to do then. The problem comes in when people try to put that control factor in play. Well if your in group A then you hate america.... (See we cant even say america anymore because that implies a group of people.) Our whole language as a species is based on groups. Groups of people, animils and items. If you no longer identitfy people in groups then you can no longer effectivly communicate with any human no matter what language you speak. The better thing to do would be to not spread the sterotypes that come with those groups.

I believe that the labels and boxes are designed as a means of control. For example, we actively label ourselves and follow that label as a strict guide. The label isn't the "I", but we make it so, presumably for social reasons. I'll use myself as an example. I started off as a left-leaning libertarian who soon labeled themselves a socialist. Though I believe in the most basic form of socialism, I allowed the label to take my dissatisfaction for current America to a level of hatred, and my criticism of capitalism turned into the idea that every capitalist or person who believed in capitalism was evil, vile, rotten and depraved.

ATS was a good detox. Talking to people of the Right - who weren't the Right that I was familiar with - allowed me to see the common ground we have, and I know that several people on the Right have seen the common ground they have with the people on the Left. Slowly, we break out of the molds that these concepts have imposed upon us. It reminds me of a passage from William Burrough's story Ah Pook Is Here:

Question: If Control’s control is absolute, why does Control need to control?
Answer: Control needs time.
Question: Is Control controlled by his need to control?
Asnwer: Yes.

One of my favorite threads.

reply to post by jmotley


Thanks for the comment and sorry about not getting back to you sooner.

Yes communication and the use of names of course is necessary. I am speaking more of the detrimental ways they label for devious purposes.

Thanks again.

Originally posted by Someone336
I believe that the labels and boxes are designed as a means of control. For example, we actively label ourselves and follow that label as a strict guide. The label isn't the "I", but we make it so, presumably for social reasons. I'll use myself as an example. I started off as a left-leaning libertarian who soon labeled themselves a socialist. Though I believe in the most basic form of socialism, I allowed the label to take my dissatisfaction for current America to a level of hatred, and my criticism of capitalism turned into the idea that every capitalist or person who believed in capitalism was evil, vile, rotten and depraved.

ATS was a good detox. Talking to people of the Right - who weren't the Right that I was familiar with - allowed me to see the common ground we have, and I know that several people on the Right have seen the common ground they have with the people on the Left. Slowly, we break out of the molds that these concepts have imposed upon us. It reminds me of a passage from William Burrough's story Ah Pook Is Here:

Question: If Control’s control is absolute, why does Control need to control?
Answer: Control needs time.
Question: Is Control controlled by his need to control?
Asnwer: Yes.

Just wanted to repost that comment to show that the dishes in one box are not so different from the dishes in another box.

Thanks someone.